Brexit Referendum Superthread

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

“Ah sure, aren’t they all as bad as each other” is a pretty weak defence.

I'm not defending anyone, just stating that demagogy, empty promises, and pre-election compromises do come with democracy (and are in fact one of the reasons for the Brexit vote: people don't trust their political elite any-more when it is telling them one option is better than the other).

Do you have evidence that more inaccurate things have been said during that campaign than during other elections? If not why are inaccuracies a bigger problem this time than then have been in the past whereby we could live with them?

Thomas_..

smjm wrote: »

That's dealt with in their plan. Like I say, worth watching the video.

smjm wrote: »

Well I cut out 20 minutes at the start, so it's only an hour odd, but your choice of course. It's very honest about the Leave problems and dismissive of people like Johnson and Gove. (The video was produced in May).

I´ve once took the time to watch the "Brexit Video" and their arguments for it. Well, nobody could have forseen the reaction on the financial market in the wake of the Brexit, at least not in a way as it really turned out.

You might find this other video worth watching, but I tend to wait what reality brings to the fore. What they have produced in May might not match with what will come in due course once the article 50 procedures are started and the negotiations will commence. I also rather doubt that any of the EU officials who will take part in the negotiations will even take notice of what is in that Video. I rather don´t matters and I´m going out from the fact that it´ll be the EU who sets up the Terms and conditions, not the UK.

I imagine a similar negotiation environment like in the days when Griffith and Collins were about to negotiate the Treaty between Britain and Ireland in 1921, where Ireland was at the receiving end and was left with take it or leave it. This time, it might be the UK who is in a similar Position and has either to take what is on offer or leave it. But that is just my opinion and things could turn into a different direction, still I don´t anticipate that the UK will get more concessions as they already got when Cameron was negotiating them and that has been made clear already by the EU, a few days before the Brexit referendum day.

Thomas_..

wes wrote: »

If it becomes the basis of an official leave plan, I will take a look then.

I´d do likewise, but I doubt that it will become the basis of an official leave plan, not one the EU would comply with.

smjm

djpbarry wrote: »

And I can’t understand how people don’t understand that things have already gotten nasty.

The Brexiteers spent a good deal of their campaign denigrating people from numerous EU states. Now they’re expecting to be treated nicey-nice by those same states in the negotiations?

I do understand that things have been nasty for years, long before the referendum, and not just in the UK. Hoping that it continues isn't helpful.

BoatMad

djpbarry wrote: »

Really?

sad really that this is what has replaced proper fact checked democratic debate

Thomas_..

djpbarry wrote: »

You mean the fictitious social welfare travellers?

Yes, and the real one. In the months before the Brexit, some EU countries who had the same problems were introducing legislation to curb that abuse and Germany was among them too. It´s been approved by the EU to take up such measures, like new settlers from other EU countries first have to work for a certain time (at least a couple of years) until they have a right to get Access to the welfare system, including getting money from the doil after they got unemployed.

So, it wasn´t all fiction at all, but the far-right and right-wingers exploited that issue for their own purposes and may have exaggerated it in some cases, but in other cases, there was real abuse and that on a certain scale, even if that scale could be seen as rather minor in compare to the whole numbers of EU citizens from Eastern or South-Eastern EU countries.

Thomas_..

djpbarry wrote: »

A view on the general subject of free movement of people from within London…

For what it’s worth (and I accept that this is entirely anecdotal), I work in a fairly high-profile scientific institute were about 40% of the staff are non-British EU nationals (myself included). We had our first post-Brexit address from our directors this morning. While the underlying message was very much “keep calm and carry on”, we were all advised to start applying for British residency/citizenship.

But perhaps more significantly, it was revealed that it is becoming increasingly apparent how badly the UK’s international reputation has been damaged by Brexit (or, more specifically, the UK’s anti-immigrant sentiment). A number of new employees who are due to start in the coming weeks and months have either lodged queries regarding immigration status or, in a few extreme cases, have withdrawn their applications entirely.

In other words, we’re already finding it more difficult to attract people from overseas, both EU and non-EU.

I´m not surprised but I´d say that this is what Farage & chums wanted, or if they really didn´t wanted that to happen, they are at least presented with the facts resulting from their agitation.

It´s different from my point of view when I was travelling to the UK for a holiday every couple of years. It´s been the last time in April this year that I went to England. Now, I might rather look for other destinations and avoid England at least for the next five to ten years or never going there at all. The bigots who had a go at other EU nationals in recent days might not differenciate between a tourist and an EU resident. It might affect their tourism as well in the mid to the long run, depending on whether they will make it more expensive for tourists to spend a holiday there and that will be the final reason for any consideration.

Thomas_..

BoatMad wrote: »

sad really that this is what has replaced proper fact checked democratic debate

The leave camp and Farage in the first place never had a genuine interest in proper fact checks. No Populist has because if that would be the case, they would had to admit that many things they said were simply either not true or simply exaggerated in order to get their agenda through.

Pro Hoc Vice

Deleted User wrote: »

RE: 'Flexcit'

http://www.junepress.com/book.asp?BID=924



Here's a smaller version of the huge doc

http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcitlite.pdf

On the one hand he wants a UN Economics Commission (replacing the EU (or making it subordinate) with the UNECE and on the other he wants to withdraw from the UN convention on refugees. He shows such a staggering lack of understanding on how international obligations work and just common understanding. After reading some of what he writes and says he is a waffler. To put is simply at least two of his points actually require telling the UN to go f itself and the other asks that same UN to get more involved in the very life blood of the country. Its actually staggering how stupid it is and I had to stop reading or seriously my head would explode.

When you actully think what he says through he want to create a New World Order, its staggering.

Pro Hoc Vice

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

On the one hand he wants a UN Economics Commission (replacing the EU with the UNECE and on the other he wants to withdraw from the UN convention on refugees. He shows such a staggering lack of understanding on how international obligations work and just common understanding. After reading some of what he writes and says he is a waffler. To put is simply at least two of his points actually require telling the UN to go f itself and the other asks that same UN to get more involved in the very life blood of the country. Its actually staggering how stupid it is and I had to stop reading or seriously my head would explode.

I'm struggling on through to the end!

smjm

Deleted User wrote: »

RE: 'Flexcit'

http://www.junepress.com/book.asp?BID=924

He offers six simple stages in order to make withdrawal easier:

Stage 1) The “Norway Option” in which we rejoin the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and trade with the EU through the European Economic Area (EEA). Once the right exit option has been chosen the areas of post-exit cooperation will be defined.

Stage 2) Deals with immigration and asylum. Since as he explains, we have to keep freedom of movement for the time being, a plan to work out how better to manage the flow of people into the UK before a long-term solution is reached.

Stage 3) To replace Brussels administration with the Geneva-based United Nations Economic Commission Europe (UNECE) along the lines proposed by Winston Churchill in 1948 and 1950.

Stage 4) Rebuilding an independent policy on foreign and defence, agriculture and fisheries, while also exploring environmental, climate change and energy. Followed by financial services and the so-called “digital market”.

Stage 5) He explains an eight-point programme which opens the way for us to break out of the EU cul-de-sac and rejoin the global trading system.

Stage 6) Ways to restore democracy, bringing both central and local government back under the control of the people are explained.

Here's a smaller version of the huge doc

http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcitlite.pdf

Thanks for that summary. I hope people will still watch the video overview.

Thomas_..

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

On the one hand he wants a UN Economics Commission (replacing the EU with the UNECE and on the other he wants to withdraw from the UN convention on refugees. He shows such a staggering lack of understanding on how international obligations work and just common understanding. After reading some of what he writes and says he is a waffler. To put is simply at least two of his points actually require telling the UN to go f itself and the other asks that same UN to get more involved in the very life blood of the country. Its actually staggering how stupid it is and I had to stop reading or seriously my head would explode.

Your description reflects the current mood among those Brexiteers with no clue at all what they expect the world to do for them whereas they themselves prefer to take up the role of the cherry picker.

smjm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

On the one hand he wants a UN Economics Commission (replacing the EU (or making it subordinate) with the UNECE and on the other he wants to withdraw from the UN convention on refugees. He shows such a staggering lack of understanding on how international obligations work and just common understanding. After reading some of what he writes and says he is a waffler. To put is simply at least two of his points actually require telling the UN to go f itself and the other asks that same UN to get more involved in the very life blood of the country. Its actually staggering how stupid it is and I had to stop reading or seriously my head would explode.

When you actully think what he says through he want to create a New World Order, its staggering.

I haven't read the document yet, but that's not what I got from the video. He does think that there should be more done at the international/global/UN level, without the need for intermediate supranational organisations such as the EU. He doesn't think the UN, as it is now, is perfect. I don't disagree with that general worldview.

smjm

smjm wrote: »

I haven't read the document yet, but that's not what I got from the video. He does think that there should be more done at the international/global/UN level, without the need for intermediate supranational organisations such as the EU. He doesn't think the UN, as it is now, is perfect. I don't disagree with that general worldview.

You should read the document.

He appears eager replace the EU with the UNECE (but also requiring UNECE to adapt to become more like the EU)

Another supranational organisation.

EuroSceptics would need a new title of course "UNESceptics" perhaps?

Page 16 of the lite document

If UNECE runs the Single Market, it can take advantage of an already well developed hierarchical structure. Doing so removes entirely the idea of a Europe of concentric circles, where the EU is positioned at the centre, with the peripheral nations in a subordinate position. Instead, the market becomes a partnership of equals.

Effectively, UNECE becomes the standard-maker for the wider Single Market,
covering the entire continent of Europe, or wider if it keeps all 56 members.

"Take Back Control from the EU (Brussels) and then Cede it to Geneva" would not have been much of a slogan I don't think...

From listening to the video at the same time, he appears to think that the EU has simply run its course and that all of what it does and has caused (in other institutions!) is now indelible and would exist without it. Seriously questionable logic there! He literally says that the EU is redundant @ ~1.06.

Pro Hoc Vice

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm struggling on through to the end!

Fair play to you, but this guy starts with and I kid you not we must protect the "Single Market" he says about Article 50 Our ministers must not have read Lisbon, and "its beyond the realms of possibility to neg an exit in takes 5 to 7 years or more, we can not neg this in less with out making compromises.

at 33 mins about.

Pro Hoc Vice

smjm wrote: »

I haven't read the document yet, but that's not what I got from the video. He does think that there should be more done at the international/global/UN level, without the need for intermediate supranational organisations such as the EU. He doesn't think the UN, as it is now, is perfect. I don't disagree with that general worldview.

No its not according to him perfect he wants to throw out the UN convention on Refugees, but use it as a head body. His view is beyond contrariety. If i was watching this in leave camp I would have voted remain. His preferred option is EEA plus he is all over the place no wonder the leave camp did not say this was the plan, he is like a freeman.

smjm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Fair play to you, but this guy starts with and I kid you not we must protect the "Single Market" he says about Article 50 Our ministers must not have read Lisbon, and "its beyond the realms of possibility to neg an exit in takes 5 to 7 years or more, we can not neg this in less with out making compromises.

at 33 mins about.

That's why I said he was honest. He's not one who thinks the UK can simply up sticks and leave without any problems.

It's fantastic that he believes that if the UK leaves the EU and joins the EEA that at some stage in the future the UK can look to create the 'one true' single market with the EU as equal partners.

I mean fantastic as in 'imaginative or fanciful'.

His savings from the EU budget are being quickly eroded by the time you get through the CAP and CFP solutions he presents.

By quickly eroded, I think I mean 'gone'.

Pro Hoc Vice

smjm wrote: »

That's why I said he was honest. He's not one who thinks the UK can simply up sticks and leave without any problems.

If saying two incompatible things is honest then I would agree, but I have found that people who tell me two truths which can not both be true are either liars or very stupid. I will accept he is honest that only leaves one option.

How can the UK go to the UN say we are out of Refugee convention but will you control the free market cause your such good people. He is telling himself and other what they want to hear.

smjm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No its not according to him perfect he wants to throw out the UN convention on Refugees, but use it as a head body. His view is beyond contrariety. If i was watching this in leave camp I would have voted remain. His preferred option is EEA plus he is all over the place no wonder the leave camp did not say this was the plan, he is like a freeman.

His preferred first phase of withdrawal is the EEA. Indeed he says that that is really the only sensible option. What's wrong with that?

He also thinks that, long-term, there should be a global single market, without protectionist blocs such as the EU. Seem fair to me.

He also notes that the UN, like the EU, and the UK, isn't perfect and need reforming long-term. I agree with that.

page 23 of 'Flexcit Lite'

As to UK energy policy, this is currently dominated by the policy imperative of decarbonising electricity production in order to meet the 2050 target of reducing emissions by 80 percent. Leaving the EU would not in itself solve any problems but it would remove any European barriers to reassessing policy. We would, however, still be bound by international commitments

Basically sums up the entire document tbh!

smjm

smjm wrote: »

His preferred first phase of withdrawal is the EEA. Indeed he says that that is really the only sensible option. What's wrong with that?

He also thinks that, long-term, there should be a global single market, without protectionist blocs such as the EU. Seem fair to me.

He also notes that the UN, like the EU, and the UK, isn't perfect and need reforming long-term. I agree with that.

We hear the "One solution doesn't fit all" for some elements of his issues when discussing problems within the EU, yet that seems to be ignored when it comes to grouping even more vastly different economies and people under the UNECE banner instead.

We hear "the problems of over regulation" when it comes to the EU, but that is not discussed when we add further snouts with different regulations needed to the trough through the UN?

We hear "not enough democracy" when it comes to the EU, but not a single mention of the "democratic deficit" that would be the UNECE being in charge of the Single Market?

He is not applying the problems that he has fairly between his models. That's terribly interesting.

K-9

smjm wrote: »

Thanks for that summary. I hope people will still watch the video overview.

We request posters to give a summary of any video content they post. Many people can't watch an 80 minute video due to time or bandwidth considerations.

smjm

K-9 wrote: »

We request posters to give a summary of any video content they post. Many people can't watch an 80 minute video due to time or bandwidth considerations.

Didn't realise that. Thanks for the heads up!

Bob24

The pound is up 1% versus the euro today (and 1.30% vs the US dollar). It has regained 2 cents since it lowest point last week.

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

The pound is up 1% versus the euro today (and 1.30% vs the US dollar). It has regained 2 cents since it lowest point last week.

The quick organisation of May will have helped.

Carney playing a blinder too.

smjm

Deleted User wrote: »

We hear the "One solution doesn't fit all" for some elements of his issues when discussing problems within the EU, yet that seems to be ignored when it comes to grouping even more vastly different economies and people under the UNECE banner instead.

We hear "the problems of over regulation" when it comes to the EU, but that is not discussed when we add further snouts with different regulations needed to the trough through the UN?

We hear "not enough democracy" when it comes to the EU, but not a single mention of the "democratic deficit" that would be the UNECE being in charge of the Single Market?

He is not applying the problems that he has fairly between his models. That's terribly interesting.

You and I are listening to him, but coming to different conclusions. His basic withdrawal plan is far less dramatic than (m)any from the Leave side would want. He advocates dropping back to the EEA and keeping free movement etc, while making longer term plans for loosening ties to the EU. That's a fairly moderate, sensible approach in my opinion.

Pro Hoc Vice

smjm wrote: »

His preferred first phase of withdrawal is the EEA. Indeed he says that that is really the only sensible option. What's wrong with that?

He also thinks that, long-term, there should be a global single market, without protectionist blocs such as the EU. Seem fair to me.

He also notes that the UN, like the EU, and the UK, isn't perfect and need reforming long-term. I agree with that.

Because the withdrawal to EEA will require free movement of labour. To advocate a single world market will require all countries in the world to agree and will by definition involve giving up some powers to UN or some other body. While he agree the UN is not perfect he want to throw away one of it cornerstone conventions.

Bob24

Deleted User wrote: »

The quick organisation of May will have helped.

Carney playing a blinder too.

Yes they definitely did the country a service not waiting 2 months to designate a new PM.

Pro Hoc Vice

smjm wrote: »

You and I are listening to him, but coming to different conclusions. His basic withdrawal plan is far less dramatic than (m)any from the Leave side would want. He advocates dropping back to the EEA and keeping free movement etc, while making longer term plans for loosening ties to the EU. That's a fairly moderate, sensible approach in my opinion.

And he also advocates control of immigration by leaving UN convention on refugees and ECHR.